But wait I thought you idicated before making ajudgement there should be a trila to uncover evidence. So it is OK for her to make an assumption with no factual data to back it up? Why should she be given that ability but no one else, unless of course you agree with them - and that is the point.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

Well, it is, since we are debating it.

I’m under the impression that killing an armed enemy combatant during wartime is lawful homicide, and therefore not murder. The statement “killing the enemy is not murder,” which you have said that you support, has severe loopholes. It makes no mention of ‘armed combatants during wartime.’ Osama and other extremists have acknowledged that they were at war with us, and that all civilians of the West are considered the enemy, armed or not – are you suggesting, then, (I’ve said this two or three times) that 9/11 was not an act of murder, and that it was instead foreign soldiers killing the enemy?

There are indeed rules of warfare. Those rules define what constitutes an “enemy” and what is considered lawful homicide and what is considered murder. The statement “killing the enemy is not murder” is misleading and oversimplified. And in this case, it was used by an ignorant woman that knew these soldiers were being charged with the murder of a civilian. Her argument is that this civilian was an enemy, and therefore his death was lawful homicide, and there is no case.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

She is entitled to her opinion, as are you, me and Luap. The point here is that she is expressing an obvious fact, and Luap has made the assumption that she is saying that innocents in Iraq are enemies, and that her statement is "detestable".

You may be confusing me with someone else here, as you were wrong about me ignoring earlier questions (there were none directed toward me) and you are quoting the word "detestable" as if I said used it.

You are right, though, in that I assumed her to be saying that all innocents in Iraq are enemies. Although what we've heard of the case seems to point at consciousness of guilt on the part of those involved (they allegedly planted a weapon and an IED near the killed man), we don't know if the soldiers will be convicted of murder. She likely knows the circumstances of the charges, and yet is saying that they are not guilty of murder because the civilian in question is an "enemy." I do not know what her perception of an enemy is: maybe she honestly believes that this man was a threat to these soldiers' lives. Or, maybe she believes that this was just an innocent civilian but that since he was an Iraqi, these soldiers don't deserve to be charged with murder. Who knows? Certainly not I, and I was incorrect in making that assumption.

She is definitely entitled to her opinion, but in my opinion, I find her opinion (simply that "killing the enemy is not murder") to be ignorant and shortsighted.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

Well clearly before whe even knows she is assuming these particular Iraqi's were enemies.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

My perspective here is regarding the relationship between government, corporate entities and their role in social development of the individual, along with how that affects the perception of the USA as a nation.

Corporations can be considered to be both human and inhuman as an entity. Corporations are by nature selfish beasts and live by the rule "survival of the fittest". Those who make money survive and those that can't make money die. It's a ruthless environment, and corporate executives have to be ruthless or expect to lose their jobs. With money meaning everything, anything that can make more money is perceived as the only possible choice.
Employee benefits are there for one reason only, improved efficiency.

Corporations involved in news and entertainment production make money from showing people what they want to see, not from telling the facts.
This reflects on the individual as everyone learns from what they see. You can note the differences between privately sponsored news or entertainment when compared to government sponsored news or entertainment. For example Fox compared to BBC.

The level of drama and spin in privately sponsored productions is designed to improve ratings, thereby making more money through advertising. Accuracy becomes sacrificed in order to increase the dramatic content.

If a nation is fed with entertainment designed to give a psychogical high, the individual learns to expect that high. Over time productions change content to become better and better at provoking the desired psychological response. Ratings directly affect future content.
This tends to mean that although the productions may be popular, the content may be shallow and lack much thought provoking content. Entertainment is becoming increasingly dominant as the primary source of learning. Many parents will sit children in front of the TV to keep them entertained.
Over the course of generations, this could lead to a profound change in the way individuals perceive the world.

The perception can be that the average US citizen is shortsighted in outlook(or ignorant) and the US government through it's actions is encouraging such an outlook.

The US government is perceived by many to support big business single mindedly.
The monetary ruthlessness of multinational corporations is therefore accepted by many to be backed by the US government. Resentment against corporations is therefore redirected against the US.

To add:
A corporation has no conscience. It does not know when enough is enough... The DVD 'The Corporation' is real eye opener on this topic

That's because you are more willing to err on the side of the terrorists.

The proposed amnesty was for insurgents who have only killed american soldiers. Just as american soldiers who kill insurgents are not charged with murder.

Both american soldiers and iraqis who kill innocent civilians without any just cause whatsoever are guilty of murder.

If you want the insurgency to end you have to offer them something that will make them seriously consider laying down their arms, otherwise if their only hope is imprisonment or death then why would they stop fighting, if anything they would try to escalate the fighting.

They are as much 'freedom fighters' as american soldiers are 'liberators'. Both terms are complete nonsense IMO.

Is it your very esteemed and sophisticated opinion that anybody who disagrees with you or the bush admin is an Anti American terrorist supporter? Thats a very creative and original argument Swoopy, ive never heard that one before....

If that is the case then you obviously have nothing to contribute to a deeper understanding of the issue and are not really worth wasting my time on.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Instead of dealing with my earlier criticism of her viewpoint, you've decided to just label me a terrorist-sympathizer, which automatically negates any argument I have - correct?

I've already shown my side of the argument, but I'll summarize here: "Killing the enemy is not murder" is a stupid slogan that can be used to justify any modern and historical atrocity.

Call me a supporter of terrorists if you want, it is just a down-and-out way of avoiding a discussion about the faults of her opinion, which you initially showed support for.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

Why? I think murder and killing-in-combat have different moral connotations. The real question here is, are Iraqi civilians our enemy? Even if a few are, can we treat the population as a whole as if they are enemies? Is that moral?

I agree that killing the enemy is not murder, but I think we should be cautious about how we define who the enemy is.

__________________
Proud to be an American...
"Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is almost always somebody screwed up." - House

If the Iraqi civilians should be your enemies, we should put your administration on our watchlist. Just my two cents. Thats the last step before ethnic cleansing. Just enemies anyway, like eg the Armenians were just enemies for the Turks.

__________________
"In democracy its your vote that counts, in feudalism its your count that votes."

You are insane if you think that the United States is even remotely interested in killing civilians. That is the last thing that we want. But, you know, if you want to take on the US military... why not push for war with us?

__________________
Proud to be an American...
"Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is almost always somebody screwed up." - House

This line was not even theoritical, allthough a few weird people in the US, may be allready there: Iraqi=enemy.

Neither the majority nor your administration would only think abou that for sure.


Its pure insanity to call Iraqi civilists that are shot just out of pure revenge for some frustration of a corumpt member of the occupant forces to be justified. And in the case someone in America should justify such a thing, i just can express my strong feelings of disgust and amazement.

__________________
"In democracy its your vote that counts, in feudalism its your count that votes."

And I still do. Killing the enemy is the goal of a goor warrior. As Patton said: 'I don't want you to die for your country; I want you to make that other son-of-a-bitch die for his".